Live TV poll

Our last poll, on the PCS, has been up for hardly four days. But it generated 51 votes. Almost three-fourths of them were cast against the position classification system. And only 14 voters supported the PCS. Several of the commentators, however, clarified that the PCS is actually a useful system, but that its flaws come from poor implementation. I agree with them.

If the RCSC wants to continue with the PCS, it should implement the system completely. In particular, it should put into practice the dual principles of “right person for the right job” and “equal money for equal value of work” that the PCS is founded upon. Half way measures will not work. And exceptions and the lack of transparency will cause civil servants to lose confidence in the system.

Our new poll is on the National Assembly’s decision to stop live TV broadcasts for most of the session. I’d written about the National Assembly’s decision a few days ago, but several people have asked for a poll.

Earlier this month, I’d also written about the BBS’s new television facilities. In a span of three weeks the BBS inaugurated a spanking new Nu 200 million National TV Centre, and they were told that they can no longer broadcast most of the National Assembly proceedings. What this is, is a national shame.

Share:

Comments

If the intentions of the Government is earnest & good, I do not see any harm in televising the sessions at all. After all it is about being transparent and accountable to the people at large, unless it is about sensitive issues, which all free & elected governments have their own checks and balances in dealing with such circumstances.!

I implore the my “Government” to give me reason for I am just exercising my humble opinion on why ‘we’ the people be deprived of the ‘sessions’ by the very body whom we elected to make decisions on our behalf!

I have been going through kuenselonline and found that the issue on corporate pay revision and kuensel reporter berated by FM are being discussed fiercely and at length. Some of the educated citizens in that forum are seeking for your take on the issue, which means they are not aware of your blog. I have high regard for your conduct and qualification and I deeply appreciate the way you are communicating with the public using the blogs. I would like to suggest you to please advertise in kuensel about your blogs for couple of times to let people know about it. I am sure everyone will benefit by discussing issues openly with you on your blog. Many thanks

OL and others, please do not abuse the provisions of the Constitution to suit your position on the live telecast. The Constitution says that the proceedings of the NA should be conducted in public but the speaker has the discretion to exclude the press and the pubic from all or any part of the proceedings….(Art 10,15). Public should not be understood as live coverage – it should be understood as open for public observation. In that respect, any one who wishes to observe any session from the public gallery is free to do so. And don’t get carried away with the right to information in theway that you intereprete either. Article 7,2 says that”A Bhutanese citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech, opinion and expression.’ Therefore, if the reporter has the right to ask, Lyonpo WN has the right to decide whther to express his views or not. It is not a one way street. Going by what some people are writing here, they expect public servants to respond to every question asked by unknown characters from behind the screen. No, that is freedom of speech according to their interpretation.

Middlepath has a point BUT actually not convincing enough. Speaker has the right to do anything is a dangerous clause and we know he will not decide on anything alone. We say many heads are better than one in any scenario. The fact that the NA session was live for the last two sessions – we need the LIVE coverage to continue. We don’t actually what the articles blah blah blah 7,2 or 12, 3 whatever ….. we the citizens have the right to ask for what is RIGHT and this time the right to view or observe the session live. If we re asking for something genuine in teh interest of the nation, then no matter what the clauses say…we should show it as long as it is for something good. Be strict about things that are bad and restrict or refrain the citizens from it BUT here we are talking about the RIGHT to view a coverage of the NA session by the BBS and what harm does it do to MP’s or the nation. We know it is the output of some useless, thoughtless vocal MP’s that voiced this during DPT meetings and then teh action. BUT I reiterate again that PRIME MINISTER is our last hope and I am sure he will do it…allow coverage. We know our PM can see through clouds, he can wade through fierce storm and he is full of LOGIC with good reasoning. Our hope rests with him and if at ll it is not possible then…we ahve to live by the saying “NO MAM DA TA SEY” meaning two many cows no matter how dumb can kill a tiger.

middle path..really? With the pace at which DTP is making fun of our constitution, i can guarantee that we will be no different to countries like Burma and N. Korea. Bhutanese people should learn from Iranians. We must keep our fears aside and protest – peasefully though.

1.i can smell the DPT cabinet member in the “middle path” . somewhere in the article i can see that high profile attitude. why dont you open like OL?

2. you seem to be very well versed with the constitution but i dont like your intent…yes, like you said you have the right to deny information, pass CDG, close the assembly session from media and do what you like…cos’ you are 45 out of 47 and you can interpret anyway you like.

please stop this “DPT first and Country second” attitude.

and you must be also thinking” what the hell, i am a minister now and i will not come in 2013 and therefore i wont give a damn”…but i ask you to ask yourself before you go to sleep. have a good day middle path….???

Witholding information by refusing to speak is Wangdi Norbu’s right. However, as an elected cabinet member he cannot berate a reporter when asked a question. Just don’t answer the friggin’ question, but who respect to the media.